Washington, Mary Kay

3520 Background: Recent analyses highlight nonhierarchical outcomes using the 8 th Edition AJCC staging system for CC. For instance, the 5-year survival rate for stages I and IIIa patients (pts) closely align. Additionally, tumor deposits (TDs) have been established as significant prognostic indicators. The AJCCCCEP commissioned this study to develop an updated pathological staging system for CC focused specifically on pts without distant metastasis (M0), while retaining the existing stage IV classification. Methods: Individual patient data (IPD) from pts diagnosed with cc (2010- 2017) in the NCDB were divided into training (70%) and internal validation (30%) datasets. External validation used IPD from clinical trials. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Risk classification development for M0 pts incorporated ungrouped data on pathologic T categories, the number of involved regional lymph nodes (LN+), and TD counts. Recursive partitioning and regression tree analyses were applied to construct hierarchical staging levels. Pre-specified criteria required survival probabilities to be consecutive and show clear separations using Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates with pairwise log-rank test P of < 0.005 for the training and < 0.05 for validation analyses. Results: Data from 281,997 pts (median age 67 years, 50% male, 81% white, 55% T3, 19% T4, 44% N+, 26% M+, and 11% with ≥1 TD) were analyzed, with a median follow-up of 7.3 years. The updated staging system (Table) met pre-specified criteria, with all observed pairwise P < 0.0001 in the development and internal validation sets. KM OS curves displayed a hierarchical separation across all sub-levels after the 1 st year of diagnosis. Consistent results were seen in pts treated with adjuvant chemotherapy in 4 trials (all pair-wise P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The proposed pathological staging system for M0 pts fulfills pre-specified criteria for hierarchical risk stratification, validated both internally and externally, and provides an evidence-based update. Pending review process, the AJCCCCEP will recommend that these changes be made to the Version 9 staging protocol for colon cancer to improve prognostication for CC pts. Stage T, # of LN+, # of TD M % of pts 1y OS (CI), % 3y OS (CI), % 5y OS (CI), % I T1, 0, 0 0 5 96 (95-97) 91 (90-92) 84 (83-86) IIa T2, 0, 0 0 10 95 (94-95) 88 (88-89) 80 (79-81) IIb T1, 0, 1+T1, 1+, 0T2, 0, 1+T2, 1-4, 0T3, 0, 0 0 27 93 (92-93) 84 (84-85) 75 (75-76) IIIa T1, 1+, 1+T2, 1-4, 1+T2, 5+, 0T3, 0, 1+T3, 1-4, 0 0 14 92 (91-92) 80 (80-81) 71 (70-72) IIIb T2, 5+, 1+T3, 1-4, 1+T3, 5+, 0T4a, 0-4, 0T4b, 0-2, 0 0 13 86 (86-87) 69 (68-70) 58 (57-59) IIIc T3, 5+, 1+T4a, 0-4, 1+T4a, 5+, anyT4b, 0-2, 1+T4b, 3+, any 0 5 78 (77-80) 53 (51-54) 40 (38-41) IVa Any 1a 19 59 (58-60) 28 (28-29) 17 (16-18) IVb Any 1b 7 43 (42-44) 14 (13-14) 6 (6-7) CI: 95% confidence internal; Peritoneum involvement data were not available before 2018 in NCDB. Thus, IVa/b were based on 7 th Edition.

Importance Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is an increasingly used treatment strategy for patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Little research has been conducted on cancer care delivery during NT, and the standards for optimal delivery of NT have not been defined. Objective To develop consensus best practices for delivering NT to patients with localized PDAC. Design, Setting, and Participants This study used a modified Delphi approach consisting of 2 rounds of voting, and a series of virtual conferences (from October to December 2023) to reach expert consensus on candidate best practice statements generated from a systematic review of the literature and expert opinion. An interdisciplinary panel was formed including 47 North American experts from surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, gastroenterology, integrative oncology, anesthesia, pharmacy, nursing, cancer care delivery research, and nutrition as well as patient and caregiver stakeholders. Main Outcome and Measures Statements that reached 75% agreement or greater were included in final consensus statements. Results Of the 47 participating panel members, 27 (57.64%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 47.6 (8.2) years. Physicians reported completing training a mean (SD) 14.6 (8.6) years prior and seeing a mean (SD) 110.6 (38.4) patients with PDAC annually; 35 (77.7%) were in academic practice. Final consensus was reached on 82 best practices for delivering NT. Of these, 38 statements focused on pre-NT practices, including diagnosis and staging (n = 15), evaluation and optimization (n = 20), and decision-making (n = 3); 29 statements defined best practices during NT, including initiation (n = 3), delivery of therapy (n = 8), restaging practices (n = 12), and management of complications during NT (n = 6); and 15 best practices were identified to guide treatment post-NT, focusing on surgery (n = 7), pathology (n = 4), and follow-up (n = 3). Conclusions Using a modified Delphi consensus technique, best practice guidelines were developed focusing on the optimal standards for delivering NT to patients with localized PDAC. Given the prognostic importance of completing multimodality therapy, efforts to standardize and optimize the delivery of NT represent an immediate opportunity to decrease care variation and improve outcomes for patients with PDAC. Future research should focus on validating and implementing best practice standards into clinical practice.

256 Background: Current staging for colon cancer utilizing the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM framework stratifies disease into groups according to how advanced the disease is and provides important standardized, individual prognostic information. Ideally, staging systems should exhibit hierarchical logic, with increasing stage reflecting worse prognosis. We sought to evaluate hierarchy within the 8th edition AJCC staging system for colon cancer. Methods: All patients with primary colon (including rectosigmoid) cancer diagnosed 2010-2017 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients were only included if they carried a histologic diagnosis of invasive primary (non-recurrent) cancer, underwent radical surgery, and had complete pathologic staging data (T, N, M category data). Patients with missing follow-up data were excluded. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess overall survival by AJCC 8th edition pathologic summary stage group to determine whether staging was hierarchical for colon cancer. Multivariable modeling and log likelihood ratio test was then used to identify relative contributions of T and N variables to overall survival. Results: Among 270,584 colon cancer patients, pathologic staging was noted to be hierarchical by T category alone and by N category alone. However, summary staging was non-hierarchical in both instances. Multivariable modeling confirmed the AJCC non-hierarchy issue (colon HRs: 1, 1.54, 2.62, 2.60, 1.02, 2.15, and 4.38 for stage 1 as reference, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 3c respectively). Multivariable modeling demonstrated that high T category (T4a, T4b) conferred the greatest risk of mortality based on hazard ratio (T4a HR 2.76, T4b HR 3.04), while high T category as well as high N category (N2a, N2b) contributed substantially to the survival model based on z-score. Further modeling assessing the predictive power of T and N category with respect to overall survival demonstrated that T category more strongly predicted overall survival than N category in colon cancer (likelihood chi-square test statistic pT:7009 vs pN:3586). Conclusions: Hierarchy in survival based on AJCC summary stage was not observed for patients with stage II-III colon cancer resulting in a paradoxical better observed survival with some stage III cancer subgroups compared to stage II cancer subgroups. High T category appears to more significantly impact survival than N category for patients with N0-N1 disease, while high N category appears more important for patients with T1-3 disease. Future revisions of the AJCC staging system should account for the differential impact of T and N category identified herein to more accurately confer prognostic information.

AbstractThe WHO Classification of Tumours provides the international standards for the classification and diagnosis of tumours. It enables direct comparisons to be made between different countries. In the new fifth edition, the series has gone digital with the launch of a website as well as a series of books, known widely as the WHO Blue Books. The first volume to be produced is on the classification of Digestive System tumours, replacing the successful 2010 version. It has been rewritten and updated accordingly. This article summarises the major diagnostic innovations that have occurred over the last decade and that have now been incorporated in the classification. As an example, it incorporates the recently proposed classification of neuroendocrine tumours, based on the recognition that neuroendocrine tumours and carcinomas differ substantially in the genetic abnormalities that drive their growth, findings relevant to treatment selection and outcome prediction. Several themes have emerged during the production process. One is the importance of the progression from hyperplasia to dysplasia to carcinoma in the evolution of the malignant process. Advances in imaging techniques and endoscopy have resulted in enhanced access to precancerous lesions in the gastrointestinal and biliary tract, necessitating both changes in classification schema and clinical practice. Diagnosis of tumours is no longer the sole purview of pathologists, and some patients now receive treatment before tissue is obtained, based on clinical, radiological and liquid biopsy results. This makes the classification relevant to many disciplines involved in the care of patients with tumours of the digestive system.